Rana v Rana, 2021 ABQB 580

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rana v Rana, 2021 ABQB 580 Date: 20210723 Docket: 2101 07841 Registry: Calgary Between: Salim Rana Plaintiff - and - Allisun Rana, Julie Tannahill, and Rana Law Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On June 17, 2021, Salim Rana [Mr. Rana] filed a Statement of Claim with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, naming Allisun Rana [Ms. Rana], Julie Tannahill [Ms.

Tannahill], and Rana Law as Defendants [Tannahill Action]. The Tannahill Action is related to other litigation being conducted by Mr. Rana, in particularly Rana v Rana , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 1501

02379, where Mr. Rana is disputing management of the affairs and assets of Mr. Rana’s mother, Gulzar Rana [Mother Action]. The defending party in the Mother Action is Mr. Rana’s brother, Zahir Rana, who is the Attorney for Gulzar Rana pursuant to an Enduring Power of Attorney. [ 2 ] The Tannahill Action Statement of Claim states that Gulzar Rana on July 28, 2013 executed an Enduring Power of Attorney and Personal Directive that granted Zahir Rana authority to conduct Gulzar Rana’s affairs. The Tannahill Statement of Claim states that Ms. Rana drafted those documents, and that then Ms.

Tannahill witnessed the execution of those documents as a notary. Ms. Rana and Ms. Tannahill were lawyers at Rana Law at that date. [ 3 ] Mr. Rana’s Tannahill Action Statement of Claim say that the preparation of the July 28, 2013 documents was improper, and alleges a conspiracy between Ms. Rana and Zahir Rana to, at a minimum, take advantage of Gulzar Rana. Mr. Rana alleges that Gulzar Rana was a client of Ms. Rana, or otherwise owed Gulzar Rana “special responsibilities”. The Tannahill Action alleges Ms.

Rana breached a “professional duty”, a duty of care to Gulzar Rana to “... [assure] that the paramount interest of Gulzar was prioritized. ...”, and that Ms. Rana has “... knowingly and willing made false representations in the execution of the Personal Directive to the prejudice of [Mr. Rana]. ...”. [ 4 ] Mr. Rana says Ms. Tannahill “... notarized the said documents without the presence of Gulzar, or as represented by Allisun.” and “... without any proof that the statements contained in both documents were truthful and accurate ...”. That allegedly means Ms.

Tannahill “... willfully participated in this scheme ...”. [ 5 ] Mr. Rana also alleges misconduct in the Mother Action by Zahir Rana and his lawyer. Mr. Rana concludes: Rana Law’s services extended to Gulzar were fraudulent, substandard, legal, inhumane, immoral, and in contravention to their respective duties as lawyers from Alberta. Such behaviours were demeaning to other honest and ethical lawyers. [ 6 ] On this basis Mr. Rana seeks remedies that include: 1. Ms. Tannahill be “decommissioned as Notary Public”; 2. Ms.

Rana’s “legal licence be revoked”; 3. “The revocation of the license of Rana Law in conducting business in the Province of Alberta”; 4. “The Plaintiff seeks the recovery of the cost of legal fees borne by Gulzar Rana as consequence of the Personal Directive amounting to $104,000 as facilitated by [Ms.

Rana] and [Zahir Rana]” [sic]; 5. $100,000 in damages from the Defendants for “... fraudulent misrepresentations and conspiracy”; and 6. $500,000 in damages from the Defendants in “Moral, Punitive, Aggravated, General, and Restitutionary Damages ...”. [ 7 ] On July 12, 2021, Counsel for the Defendants, by letter, referred the Statement of Claim as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6.

The Defendant takes the position that the Tannahill Action Statement of Claim is vexatious, a collateral attack on previous findings of this Court, litigation for a wrongful purpose, seeks impossible remedies, and makes allegations that are hopeless. Counsel for the Defendants also included a transcript of October 24, 2017 proceedings in the Mother Action. [ 8 ] I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta.

After review of the Tannahill Action Statement of Claim, I conclude it exhibits characteristics of abusive litigation, is an AVAP, and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. II. CPN7 [ 9 ] CPN7 is a practice implemented by the Court to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

This practice is intended to provide a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response to the litigants: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 [ Unrau #1 ]. [ 10 ] If, on initial review by the Court, the pleading appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(

s) which may be a basis to apply Rule 3.68 and strike out the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity, within 14 days, to provide the Court with a Written Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 11 ] CPN7 is not for “close calls”, but instead the Court intervenes by this mechanism when the defect(

s) in question are “apparent on the face of the pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1 , at paras 22, 24 . Only restricted forms of evidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since this process has a very narrow focus, and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 347 at paras 24-48 [ Ubah #2 ]. There are exceptions to that rule.

For example, the Court may examine other documents in the same proceeding that are related to the suspect filing ( Ubah #2 at para 35 ), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that has already been decided or closed [ Ubah #2 at para 45] . III CPN7 Analysis

[12] The Mr. Rana’s Second Action Statement of Claim exhibits a number of apparent issues. A. Preliminary Issue: Status of the Mother Action October 24, 2017 Transcript [13] Prior to evaluating the prima facie deficiencies in the Tannahill Action Statement of Claim, I will evaluate whether theOctober 24, 2017 transcript from the Mother Action should be considered as evidence in this CPN7 process.

CPN7 is a version of theRule 3.68 process that focusses on the merit of a single document, however, other evidence and materials may be considered in limitedcircumstances, such as where those items are relevant to whether an AVAP is a collateral attack. [14] Counsel for the Defendants highlights a passage from the Mother Action transcript. In this transcript Romaine J explicitlyevaluates whether Mr. Rana has displaced the presumption that Gulzar Rana understood and had capacity to execute the July 28, 2013power of attorney documents. Justice Romaine concluded at p 6, ll 6-23: In

summary, Salim Rana has failed to establish the existence of suspicious circumstances that would displace the presumption of capacityon a balance of probabilities and, therefore, I do not need to address the third issue. However, in the event that I am wrong on the secondissue, I am satisfied that, through her affidavit evidence and cross-examination, Ms. Rana has established that she knew Mrs. Rana welland despite the October 12th diagnosis, she took care to ensure that Mrs.

Rana was alert, aware of what she was doing and capable ofgiving instructions at the July, 2013, meeting and that she clearly and carefully communicated the legal effect of the power of attorney,both when receiving instructions and when attending at the execution of the instrument. I am satisfied by the evidence, and there is no issue, that the power of attorney was executed in accordance with the requisite statutoryformalities. I am satisfied that Mrs. Rana knew and approved of its contents and that she had the required capacity when she signed it.

There is no evidence of actual impropriety, coercion, undue influence, or fraud involved in the execution of the power of attorney. SalimRana has adduced no evidence to the contrary. [15] I conclude the July 28, 2013 transcript is admissible since these findings of fact and law made by Justice Romaine relatedirectly to both Mr. Rana’s overall claim in the Tannahill Action, and the specific allegations in the Tannahill Action Statement ofClaim. B.

Collateral Attack [16] A collateral attack is a litigation step or proceeding that challenges, directly or indirectly, a prior court decision or result.Collateral attacks are generally prohibited and an abuse of process: British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v Figliola, 2011SCC 52 at para 28. Collateral attacks subvert “the orderly and functional administration of justice”: Dagenais v Canadian BroadcastingCorp, (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 835 at 871, 120 DLR (4th) 12.

Any action or application that is identified as a collateralattack should be terminated, immediately: Alberta v Pocklington Foods Inc, 1995 ABCA 111 at para 14. [17] Examples of prohibited collateral attacks include: 1. bringing proceedings to determine an issue that has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, 2. using previously raised grounds and issues improperly in a subsequent proceeding, 3. conducting a proceeding to circumvent the effect of a court order, and 4. conducting multiple proceedings with the same litigation objective. [Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 619 [Unrau #2].] [18] Justice Romaine heard an application by Mr.

Rana in the Mother Action that examined and rejected the factual and legal basison which Mr. Rana alleges that the Gulzar Rana power of attorney was obtained improperly. That is the same allegation on which Mr.Rana now bases the Tannahill Action. [19] I therefore request that Mr. Rana indicate why the Tannahill Action Statement of Claim is not a collateral attack on the July28, 2013 oral decision of Justice Romaine, and is, as a consequence, an abuse of the Court. C.

Inadequate Pleadings [20] An application or statement of claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of the caseit must meet: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18 at para 87. Proper pleadings require more than simply bare assertions, or “baldallegations” of wrongdoing: GH v Alcock, 2013 ABCA 24 at para 58; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA227 at paras 16-20.

Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate to theresponding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health andWelfare) at para 19. [21] Mr. Rana cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendants to “fill in theblanks”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 20.

A lack of specificity is not merely a technical defect, but goes tothe core of the claim: GH v Alcock at para 58, citing AL v Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) (2006), (ON CA), 274 DLR (4th) 431, 218 OAC 150 (Ont CA). Inadequate pleadings abuse the court’s process because a respondentcannot defend against unclear and non-specific claims and the court cannot control the proceedings, identify the proposed argument, ormake findings on the relevant facts: Unrau #2 at para 629.

[ 22 ] While, in certain instances, the Tallahill Action Statement of Claim provides a narrative and certain details of what Mr. Rana alleges the Defendants did wrong, much of the Statement of Claim is still apparently only composed of bald allegations. For example, Mr. Rana at paragraph 41 alleges “... the Respondents intentionally refused the application of the Plaintiff to see his mother without any reasonable grounds.” Presuming here that Mr. Rana means the Defendants, that leaves unexplained how Ms. Rana, Ms. Tannahill, and Rana Law “... refused the application ...”.

None of these Defendants have any apparent legal status in relation to Gulzar Rana. [ 23 ] Similarly, Mr. Rana at paragraph 28 makes this statement: The Plaintiff has a legal standing to contest these acts perpetrated by the Defendants. As established by law and jurisprudence, clients also include a person who reasonably believes that a lawyer/client relationship exists although one or more of the customary indicia of such a relationship are absent This would appear to indicate Mr. Rana claims he thought he was a client of the Defendants in relation to preparation of his mother’s power of attorney documents. Mr.

Rana provides no explanation of why he would believe that. [ 24 ] This issue is also apparent in the remedies sought by Mr. Rana. For example, Mr. Rana seeks an unspecified amount in “Restitutionary Damages”. Restitution means return of property that was improperly taken. The Tannahill Action does not identify any property of Mr. Rana that was allegedly taken by one or more of the Defendants. [ 25 ] I therefore ask that Mr. Rana explain how his Tannahill Action Statement of Claim provides a basis for the Court and Defendant to make a meaningful response. D. Hopeless Litigation [ 26 ] Underlying Mr.

Rana’s Tannahill Action is a claim that lawyers and a law firm involved with his mother’s affairs owe Mr. Rana some kind of legal obligation. Canadian courts have repeatedly ruled that lawyers have no duty of care to opposing or adverse parties: e.g.

Templanza v Ford , 2018 ABQB 168 at paras 69-72 , appeal abandoned 2019 ABCA 309 , reinstatement denied 2019 ABCA 345 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 39034 (30 April 2020); Kumar v Korpan , 2020 SKQB 256 at paras 46-49 ; 9383859 Canada Ltd v Saeed , 2020 ONSC 4883 ; Sewak v Killips , 2021 ABQB 64 at paras 22-23 ; Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 277 at para 16-20 , lawsuit struck out as an abuse of the Court, 2021 ABQB 352 at para 21 . [ 27 ] Manderscheid J in Wong v Leung , 2011 ABQB 688 at paras 23-24 concluded: There can be absolutely no legal duty of care owed by a Defendant's counsel to a Plaintiff.

If such duty were to exist, it would strike at the very heart of the adversarial system, which forms the very foundation of litigation under the common law. ... [ 28 ] Given these authorities, I request that Mr. Rana indicate why, him suffering injuries that allegedly flow from the Defendants’ actions in the Mother Lawsuit. provides a basis for Mr. Rana to claim damages. E. Abusive Litigation: Busybody Litigation [ 29 ] Paragraph 60 of the Tannahill Action Statement of Claim seeks $104,000 that is “... recovery of the cost of legal fees borne by Gulzar Rana ...”. Mr.

Rana appears to be attempting to enforce a potential legal claim of a third party: his mother. [ 30 ] Attempts by third-parties to advance claims on behalf of other persons are “busybody” litigation, a kind of proceeding with an improper purpose, and an abuse of court processes: Unrau #2 at para 664 . [ 31 ] I therefore request that Mr. Rana provide an explanation as to why he may advance damages claims on behalf of persons who are not named parties to this litigation? F. Abusive Litigation: Engaging in Processes Outside Existing Administrative Schemes [ 32 ] Mr. Rana seeks that this Court “decommission” Ms.

Tannahill, and “revoke” Ms. Rana’s “legal licence” and the “license of Rana Law in conducting business”. What Mr. Rana means by the “license of Rana Law” is not clear. Is this a demand in relation to federal or Alberta (or other provincial) business corporation status? Rana Law’s status as a “law firm” pursuant to the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 ?

Or, something else? [ 33 ] In any case, as I concluded in Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 352 at para 22 , the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 , gives the Law Society of Alberta sole jurisdiction to determine who may practice law in Alberta, and discipline of lawyers who act contrary to their ethical obligations. If Mr. Rana has a valid complaint, then he should advance that in the appropriate forum – before the Law Society of Alberta. If Mr. Rana is dissatisfied with that outcome, then he may be able to pursue that via an appeal or judicial review in an Alberta court. [ 34 ] I therefore request Mr.

Rana explain why the Tannahill Action is not an abuse of the Court because Mr. Rana has not first exhausted the relevant administrative regime: Al-Ghamdi v Alberta , 2017 ABQB 684 at paras 126-128 , aff’d 2020 ABCA 81 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 39389 (25 February 2021). G. Abusive Litigation: Ungrounded and Exaggerated Allegations of Lawyer Misconduct

[35] Mr. Rana in the Tannahill Action Statement of Claim openly alleges fraud, misrepresentation, and conspiracy among theDefendants.

The Statement of Claim at paragraph 57 goes so far as to allege the Defendants’ actions “... were fraudulent, substandard,legal, inhumane, immoral, and in contravention to their respective duties as lawyers from Alberta.” [36] Ungrounded allegations of conspiracy, deception, fraud, and misconduct by lawyers, and other justice system participants, area well-recognized indicium of abusive litigation that warrants legal proceedings being terminated and court-ordered prospective litigantand litigation management: Re Lang Michener and Fabian (1987), (ON SC), 37 DLR (4th) 685, 59 OR (2d) 353 (OntHCJ); Chutskoff Estate v Bonora, 2014 ABQB 389 at para 92; Unrau #2 at para 714. [37] I request Mr.

Rana explain why his allegations of lawyer misconduct are not a basis to terminate the Tannahill Action as anabuse of the Court. H. Excessive and Impossible Remedies [38] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. I have already indicated that it seems Mr. Rana’s $104,000 claim is apparently abusive and illegal busybody litigation, and that Mr.Rana’s demands concerning the professional status of Ms. Rana and Ms. Tannahill are also impossible. [39] In addition to that, Mr. Rana seeks a total of $600,00 in other damages.

He does not explain the bases for those. That is a largesum, and without adequate pleadings to substantiate those amounts, it appears those are excessive claims. I have previously observed therestitution claim has no alleged basis. [40] One of the headings that makes up that $600,000 is general damages. Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 229, 83 DLR (3d) 452 set the maximum legal claim of general damages at $100,000. After inflation, the Andrewsv Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd general damages cap is now about $365,000.

That amount was for a young adult whose injuries led to neartotal disability. [41] Mr. Rana does not allege injury that would warrant the near maximum $365,000 amount, but, instead, his Statement of Claimonly makes bald allegations of “emotional and mental anguish”. Since Mr. Rana provides no specific bases at all for what other injurieshe suffered -restitution, “Punitive”, or “Aggravated” damages - I will infer that his general damages demand makes up a substantial partof the $600,000 amount he has claimed. [42] Given that conclusion, and Mr. Rana’s failure to substantiate his other damages claim, Mr.

Rana is asked to indicate how theremedies sought in his Statement of Claim are not excessive. IV. Conclusion [43] Mr. Rana’s Tannahill Action Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court thereforeseeks a response from Mr. Rana to five questions: 1. Why is the Tannahill Action not a collateral attack on the October 24, 2017 findings and decision of Romaine J in the MotherAction? 2. How does the Tannahill Action Statement of Claim provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningfulresponse? 3.

Why are the authorities that conclude lawyers have no duty of care to adverse parties incorrect? 4. Why is Mr. Rana not an abusive litigant:

a) for attempting to assert alleged “busybody” rights that belong to a third-party non-litigant,

b) by him seeking remedies with this Court prior to exhausting his alternative administrative processes, and

c) by Mr. Rana making ungrounded allegations of lawyer conspiracy, fraud, and misconduct? 5. How are the damages sought by Mr. Rana not excessive and/or impossible? [44] As a result of this analysis, I order that Mr. Rana’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 07841 Statement of Claim isstayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Mr. Rana has until 14 days after this decision is filed to file and serve a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages,pursuant to CPN7, para 3(b). The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. 2.

If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline, the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whetherthe Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Mr. Rana provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants have seven days to each make a Written Reply of upto a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Replies should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate ChiefJustice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Mr.

Rana’s Written Submission, and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will render its final

decision on whether the Docket 2101 07841 Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 45 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying this Action. Mr. Rana’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Mr. Rana may be served this Decision and the corresponding Order by email to: salimrana@icloud.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 23 rd day of July, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Stuart J. Weatherill Emery Jamieson LLP for the Defendant